Evaluates smartphone pupillometry to assess PTSD severity in veterans, suggesting clinical utility.
Abstract Background Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition, yet no current assessment approach, whether clinician interview or self-report, incorporates objective physiological measurement. The absence of a validated biomarker is a fundamental gap. Methods We evaluated smartphone-based pupillometry (Senseye Diagnostic Tool, iPhone) in 38 trauma-exposed veterans in an intensive outpatient program. Pupil-to-iris ratio (PIR) was measured during pupillary light reflex (PLR) and affective image viewing (AIV) tasks across treatment and follow-up visits (96 PLR, 88 AIV sessions; same-day PCL-5, BDI-II, BAI). Continuous, hierarchical, and within-person mixed-effects regressions isolated PTSD-specific variance and tested within-person symptom tracking. Results Constriction PIR correlated with PCL-5 severity (R2 = 0.109, p = 0.001), concentrated in avoidance (R2 = 0.171) and negative alterations in cognitions/mood (R2 = 0.224, both p < 0.001) rather than arousal. After adjusting for demographics and comorbidity, PTSD clusters explained an additional 16.4% of variance (p < 0.001), about seven times the comorbid contribution. Dark Mean PIR was elevated in PTSD + sessions (p = 0.019). Within-person, participants' own PCL-5 changes tracked concurrent changes in Dark Mean PIR (β = 0.0024, p = 0.006) and Constriction PIR (β = 0.0014, p = 0.031), independent of BDI-II and BAI. AIV trended similarly but was not significant. Conclusions Smartphone pupillometry shows promise as an objective, physiologically grounded approach to PTSD assessment. These proof-of-concept findings show that the biomarker captures PTSD-specific variance independent of comorbid psychopathology and tracks within-person symptom change. Validation in larger, more diverse samples is required to establish clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: